Re: Bug(let) in tack-1.06

[Thomas Dickey]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2011, Schmitz, Joachim wrote:

> Hi there
>
> In tack-1.06/output.c I encountered a warning reg. a pointless comparison of an 
> unsigned value vs. EOF, and found that this is due to the fact that chat is 
> unsigned on my platform (as on many others too). Here's the patch I came up 
> with:
>
> --- ./output.c.orig     2007-04-29 18:18:46.000000000 -0500
> +++ ./output.c  2011-02-23 13:00:12.000000000 -0600
> @@ -718,8 +718,8 @@
> int
> wait_here(void)
> {
> -       char ch, cc[64];
> -       char message[16];
> +       signed char ch;
> +       char cc[64], message[16];
>        int i, j;
>
>        for (i = 0; i < (int) sizeof(cc); i++) {
>
>
> Maybe int whould have been a better choice, not sure.

int would be better (will do that - thanks).

>        return FALSE;
> #endif
> +#ifdef __TANDEM

hmm - I wonder if there are other implementations that do this.

> +    return getuid() != 65535 && geteuid() != 65535;    /* ...finally, disallow
> root */
> +#else
>     return getuid() != 0 && geteuid() != 0;    /* ...finally, disallow root */
> +#endif
> }
> #endif

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net